The timing is of course not coincidental.
The justice system reform plan of the Minister of Justice has been floating in the air for many years.
On the face of it, her renewed and publicized withdrawal on the eve of the High Court hearing that is to decide on Minister Deri's fitness to serve as minister is intended to send a clear message to the court. To create a real change in the balance system between the authorities in Israel, among them, changing the procedure for electing judges, and emptying the actual content of some of the court's rulings, especially those that invalidated laws enacted by the Knesset.
On the face of it, this reform is not just "putting a gun on the table", but the landing of an entire artillery battalion, accompanied by an auxiliary company of snipers carrying automatic rifles.
Much more than a smoking gun was placed on the table of the High Court, Aryeh Deri, photo: Yonatan Zindel/Flash90
Indeed, a thorough study of the various sections of the reform, as presented by the minister, shows that they are not all made of the same skin.
As in the well-known parable, it seems that many goats were intentionally introduced into the reform shed, some of which will later be slaughtered, and some of which will leave it or undergo a significant change.
Therefore, the great stench emanating from the herd now, may dissipate to a large extent in the future when the gap between the declaration of intentions and their actual realization becomes clear.
All goats are equal, but there are some that are equal and much more dangerous.
Thus, for example, the intention is to legislate a "balanced superseding clause" according to which a political majority of 61 MKs will be enough to cancel a High Court ruling.
overcoming?
Maybe.
But there is certainly no balance here.
Since every government relies on a coalition majority of at least 61 MKs (with the exception of rare cases of minority coalitions that did not last for a long time), the meaning of such a move is the emptying of the court's effective ability to review unconstitutional moves by the Knesset. In this situation , even if the introduction of a strictly racist law, or one that seriously infringes on one of the human rights, is enacted, the court will not have the power to invalidate it.
The timing is of course no coincidence, Justice Minister Yariv Levin, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
It is to be assumed and hoped that at the end of the day this proposal will not be accepted.
Even for those who support its purpose, there are other, much less offensive alternatives.
Thus, for example, proposals, some of which were also mentioned in the minister's reform, according to which the High Court of Justice can invalidate a law only in its full session and by a special majority of its judges. Nor is a "superseding clause" completely invalid, provided that its approval will not rely on the coalition's automatic majority, but will require a much larger majority. of 70 and maybe 80 MKs.
The statement of intent regarding changing the composition of the committee for the selection of judges and adding two public figures (a washed-up name for politicians in disguise?) instead of representatives of the Bar Association or in addition to them is a goat of a completely different kind.
There is no sanctity in the current composition of the committee.
Nor in the number of its members.
However, experience shows that on the whole the committee selects worthy judges, while also achieving appropriate balances in the selection of judges of the Supreme Court. This was especially contributed to by the amendment stating that a majority of at least 7 out of 9 members of the committee is necessary to elect a judge of the Supreme Court.
The committee chooses worthy judges, animals in the committee for choosing judges, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Transparency is always a welcome thing, but it must be ensured that the election process does not turn into a public, shameful and embarrassing political circus, which will compete with the Central Election Commission's deliberations regarding the disqualification of parties.
Beyond the statement and the noise it provokes, the additional "goat", which the minister presented in the form of "cancellation of the cause of reasonableness", seems to have no practical meaning.
Indeed, this is a ground for intervention - one of many - that the court uses when it comes to criticize the actions of other authorities.
This reason was invented, "out of nowhere", by the court many years ago, and since then it has been used frequently.
However, the mention of "reasonableness" and "premises of reasonableness" is not in the law and cannot be "dismissed" in any case.
Even if it is determined that the court is prohibited from recalling, it will be able to continue to make use of many other grounds for intervention that are in its toolbox.
Or then, all the happy words of the complete legal ambiguity dictionary can come out in a stormy parenthesis.
"The Enlightened Public" and "The Fundamental Principles of the System", "Foreign Considerations" and "Common Sense", and more and more.
The attempt to precisely define the limits of the judges' grounds is doomed to failure in advance, Ministry of Justice, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
"With God's help", as we know, anything can be done.
The Hebrew language and the legal imagination are rich enough to contain these vague terms and add to them.
On the face of it, these are reasonable grounds for intervention, which give the court significant tools in the judicial review process.
Indeed, the attempt to precisely define their exact boundaries is doomed to failure in advance, and to a large extent depends on each judge.
This is how the fear is realized that instead of a "court" we get a "judge's house", where the result is determined not according to the law but according to the random and random identity of the judge.
It is to be hoped that in the midst of the storm, these 'goats' will leave the fold.
After it undergoes a thorough cleaning to remove the stench emanating from it, new goats, white as snow, will be re-introduced into it, which will indeed lead to a reform of the judicial system, but one that will lead to the correction of the distortion and not to corruption, to the strengthening of the rule of law and not to harming it.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us